SCoC rules police require a warrant to access ISP subscriber information

[Resolute 14]

Solid decision by the court, though interestingly, it still upheld the conviction of the child pornographer who appealed.

Full decision is posted as part of the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/in...ourt-1.2673823

And, as the comments section on CBC shows, this will also be a boon to our resident Harper Haters. This decision will impact two bills currently before Parliament.

[rubecube]

Somewhere, Vic Toews is pissed.

[nik-]

Supreme Court is putting in good work lately.

[Jimmy Stang]

This is very good news. Nobody likes a child pornographer, but requiring a warrant (and the oversight that comes with it) is essential. Investigate people properly and let justice happen, for sure, but giving police an open door to your personal information without oversight is bad news for everyone.

[Resolute 14]

Definitely. And in a case like this, the time required to get a warrant would be extremely unlikely to prevent the cops from catching this type of criminal. Our rights are protected, and the bad guy goes to jail. Win-win result.

[Canuck-Hater]

Has Stephen Harper and his gang of trouble makers even read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Because the supreme court is just owning them lately.

[Resolute 14]

This particular decision is not directly relevant to anything Harper has done - the law the police used to justify the warrantless request for information is one of Chretien's laws. But, as I noted, the ruling will force the government to alter two current bills.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

This particular decision is not directly relevant to anything Harper has done - the law the police used to justify the warrantless request for information is one of Chretien's laws. But, as I noted, the ruling will force the government to alter two current bills.

Perhaps, but this ruling wasn't going to happen if bill C-13 wasn't on the books.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Has Stephen Harper and his gang of trouble makers even read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Because the supreme court is just owning them lately.

This is just both bodies of government working properly. You have a conservative majority elected on a tough on crime platform enacting legislation that pushes the bounds of the charter. In theory, the majority of the pop backs these types of changes, Then you have the Supreme court stepping in to protect individual and minority rights. This is how the system was designed to work.

Gov enacts will of people, supreme court protects individuals, based on Constitution, people get sick of gov elect someone new. So I disagree with the assertion that the supreme court is owing them as 90% of there bills are left standing.

That said good decision by the supreme court. No imminent risk of harm from not getting a warrent so get a warrent.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's worth mentioning that the evidence collected in the case against the pedo that prompted this supreme court ruling, will still be admissible against him. I'm glad they gave the decision they did without letting this guy off the hook.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just both bodies of government working properly. You have a conservative majority elected on a tough on crime platform enacting legislation that pushes the bounds of the charter. In theory, the majority of the pop backs these types of changes, Then you have the Supreme court stepping in to protect individual and minority rights. This is how the system was designed to work.

Gov enacts will of people, supreme court protects individuals, based on Constitution, people get sick of gov elect someone new. So I disagree with the assertion that the supreme court is owing them as 90% of there bills are left standing.

That said good decision by the supreme court. No imminent risk of harm from not getting a warrent so get a warrent.

Good decision. It's almost like they are doing the will of the people.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nik-

Perhaps, but this ruling wasn't going to happen if bill C-13 wasn't on the books.

Umm, yes it would. This decision came down in an appeal of a 2007 conviction in relation to actions the police took relative to a law passed in 2000. This ruling will impact C-13, but the existence of that bill is not why the court made this ruling.

[FlamesAddiction]

Friday's decision concerned the case of Matthew David Spencer, of Saskatchewan, who was charged in 2007 and convicted of possession of child pornography after a police officer saw illegal files being downloaded to his IP address — a series of numbers representing the internet identity of a device such as a computer.

The police officer went to Spencer's internet service provider (ISP), Shaw, and asked for the real identity of the customer attached to the IP address. The police officer did not have a search warrant, but was given subscriber information for Spencer's sister, allowing police to track him down.

Question for anyone with legal knowledge in these things, but if the police saw illegal files being downloaded, wouldn't getting a warrant from the ISP be just a formality anyway? They are still witnessing a crime, so I would think that a judge would grant a warrant to investigate further.

Also, is there anything in this ruling that would prevent them doing the umbrella monitoring that led to this in the first place? It sounds like the ruling only says that getting the perp's real name and address is a warrant issue, but actually monitoring internet activity from different IP addresses is still fine.

[Resolute 14]

IANAL (obviously), but in the first question, I agree. Nobody does more work than they have to, and that will include police. If they don't think they need a warrant, why go to the trouble? Of course, some criticism needs to be thrown at Shaw, because they made no effort to defend their customers by asking for a warrant.

On the second, I think that's pretty much impossible. An IP Address is basically public information - it has to be for the internet protocol to work. For instance, any of the mods here can tell what your IP address is, and if you were to join a BitTorrent swarm, you would see the addresses of anyone connected to you. The IP Address is public information. The name and information of the subscriber behind it is not. That seems reasonable to me.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is just both bodies of government working properly. You have a conservative majority elected on a tough on crime platform enacting legislation that pushes the bounds of the charter. In theory, the majority of the pop backs these types of changes, Then you have the Supreme court stepping in to protect individual and minority rights. This is how the system was designed to work.

Wouldn't fiscal conservatives call this an inefficient use of money and wasteful spending? Why not consult with the Supreme Court while drafting the legislation to ensure it is up to snuff instead of drafting a bill that is rejected during a costly trial and have to start the costly drafting procedure over again?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Addick

Wouldn't fiscal conservatives call this an inefficient use of money and wasteful spending? Why not consult with the Supreme Court while drafting the legislation to ensure it is up to snuff instead of drafting a bill that is rejected during a costly trial and have to start the costly drafting procedure over again?

Because bogging down the SCC with references is far more inefficient than having a few bills fail a challenge.

Theoretically the bills are drafted by a legal team that knows and understands the Charter. Sometimes the government will try and enact a bill to push the limits of the Charter, sometimes they will send a reference.

[Daradon]

Weren't a lot of people on the theory that the Conservative government was drafting a lot of the bills knowing full well they would probably be rejected just to appeal to their base and a few fence sitters?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Addick

Wouldn't fiscal conservatives call this an inefficient use of money and wasteful spending? Why not consult with the Supreme Court while drafting the legislation to ensure it is up to snuff instead of drafting a bill that is rejected during a costly trial and have to start the costly drafting procedure over again?

Can the supreme court comment on draft legislation? I vaguely remember a government doing it and the court saying they couldnt provide an official ruling until it was heard in the court.

Also 90% of the law that the liberals passed on child porn successfully remains on the books. One aspect of the law was overturned. I favour this approach over waiting for the supreme court to decide.

Now if the conservatives just keep the current legislation before the house the way it is knowing that it will be overturned I would be upset as the court just ruled on it.